Headlines

Charles Cook

Don’t blame the Romney campaign

It’s the Romney campaign’s fault. This column has sharply criticized the Romney camp’s deliberate decision not to define him early on by running biographical and testimonial ads to establish the former Massachusetts governor as someone worthy of being president. This would have effectively added a Teflon coating to protect him from the attacks that ended up defining him in such a pejorative way among swing voters in the battleground states that, even if he had won the popular vote nationally, he still probably wouldn’t have won 270 electoral votes. The scar tissue from the Bain Capital summer was too great, and this election ended up being more than just a simple referendum on President Obama and the economy.

But this explanation ignores the larger problem in the party: the nominating process that, in effect, pinned him down at the 2-yard line on the conservative end of the field rather than positioning him between the 40-yard lines.

Watching politics for 40 years now, I have seen the two major parties tend to leapfrog each other in terms of political sophistication. This state of the political art, when one party is firing on all eight (or, these days, six or even four) cylinders, seems to happen when the other party is in desperate need of a tune-up.

Democrats had a lousy economy, made some rather dubious policy choices in the past four years, and had an incumbent who chose to skip the first debate. But when it came to just about everything else, they handled things expertly, or developments went their way.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Win, lose, draw, whatever, he had choices (duh—like all of us), and he chose what he chose. Result, a long vacation. I pay for my trips through life, so does Mitt, and the RNC, and the folks who were just surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeee it was in the bag.

Romney didn’t have the funds to fight back during the Summer of Smears. Because of the stupid money rules, he was barred from spending general election funds until he was formally nominated. Obama, meanwhile, could spend the money he raised for an uncontested Dem primary bashing the presumed nominee. He definitely should’ve fought back against those attacks and defined himself before they did, but he was at a decided disadvantage when it came to do that.

But this explanation ignores the larger problem in the party: the nominating process that, in effect, pinned him down at the 2-yard line on the conservative end of the field rather than positioning him between the 40-yard lines.

Except he ran hard against the base and won. He went through most of this campaign thinking all he needed to do was focus on independents. He won those independents, but it cost him the Republican base in the process.

We often hear a lot about compromise, but the “moderates” of the party seem more interesting compromising with their closer ideological bretheren, the Democrats, than their own party base which they are now openly saying is racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, and too fiscally conservative, and must therefore be jettisoned. We don’t know in favor of what, just that the base must be gotten rid of.

Ultimately, had the moderates compromised with the base instead of screaming at them to fall in line, things might have turned out differently. Instead, the base and its issues went entirely ignored while Romney ran a bland, colorless campaign designed to attract moderates, who proved unable to replace the party base. The party base essentially won the 2010 elections for the GOP, and then were treated with open hatred and contempt by the GOP party leadership, who worked tirelessly to undermine them while selling us out to Obama.

Lecturing the bad kids on the right and wrong of things. The stay-at-homers stayed home because they wanted to, the elite cigar smoked their fancy selves into Wonderland, and the left if giggling all the way to the tax collection box. Just desserts to everyone who called the info commercial.

Sorry, Charlie. Mittens’ campaign had plenty of time and failed to unify the party after a hard fought primary. Looking back over the past two years, many of the Mitt sycophants at this site were emblematic of the campaign in general with the attitude of ” We won. We know better than you, now shut up and vote for Mitt”.

Not necessarily a compelling campaign for victory, even up against the worst president in American history.

Except he ran hard against the base and won. He went through most of this campaign thinking all he needed to do was focus on independents. He won those independents, but it cost him the Republican base in the process.

Doomberg on November 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Wrong, most of those, “missing white voters,” that people keep howling about, were “Independents!” Highly negative party turnout campaigns tend to force out independent voters, and this was exactly Obama’s strategy. He made the race as nasty as possible at commercials aimed at the middle class, not to convince any to vote for him, but to convince as many as possible to stay home.

Do you really think all those Republicans that insisted they’d crawl across glass to vote against Obama, stayed home!? No, they voted, it was the low information apathetic voters that stayed home.

Romney didn’t have the funds to fight back during the Summer of Smears.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Romney could’ve spent half a trillion and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Romney didn’t lose because of smears or because he was too “conservative” (hilarious, that) or because the election was stolen. Romney lost because he was yet another GOP moderate national candidate, and GOP moderate candidates lose nationally. The denial goes on.

He made the race as nasty as possible at commercials aimed at the middle class…

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I get so tired also of hearing about this mythical lambasting that Romney was supposed to have taken in the media. Romney didn’t get a tenth of the abuse that Palin got in 2008, or even George Bush in either of his election victories.

1.) A fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal candidate has been tried, under ideal conditions, and has lost. Romney said he would cut taxes and roll back regulation to give businesses more confidence. Likewise, he also said that Chick-fil-A voters were not part of his campaign, told the Des Moines Register that he wouldn’t be enacting legislative restrictions on abortion, and his own sister was going out telling women that he would do nothing to overturn Roe. Obama had everything going against him with the economy, and Romney stood to be the beneficiary. Romney lost, and lost badly. So much for fiscal conservatism and social liberalism being the thing which the GOP needed to attract a deluge of support. Any more “electable” candidates like Romney, and the GOP will be undergoing rigor mortis faster than you can say etch-a-sketch.

2.) Economic conservatism has failed. From the no new taxes under any circumstances, to smearing the 47%, the arrogant elitism that permeated the GOP talking heads and Romney himself was disgusting. Bain was a hindrance, not a help, to Romney’s campaign and further played into turning away swing state voters.

3.) Even When “It’s the Economy, Stupid”, It’s Not the Economy, Stupid. There were plenty of issues to talk about, but Romney apparently decided to “stay on message,” even when messages about other issues like Benghazi were clearly available to him. Obama, meanwhile, reminded his liberal base about their social liberalism and that he shared it, reminded voters that he was the one who got bin Laden, and spoke about his desire to increase taxes on the wealthy. He went for the full range of issues. One-trick pony Republicanism will get the GOP nowhere.

4.) Peace through Strength. Victory through Strength. On the few occassions that Romney did make an argument that wasn’t strictly about the economy, he spoke about it in the weakest terms. With abortion for instance, he spoke about not wanting Federal funding, about handing the decision back to the states (which only shifts responsibility rather than sets a policy), and that he favored exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. All of these are very mild, very moderate, if you will, positions. And absolutely none of them got to the heart of the matter, articulating the moral evil that abortion is because it exterminates an innocent person for the sake of another person’s convenience. 98% of abortions are elective abortions. Obama was against BAIPA. But rather than go for the jugular, Romney played it safe. Cowardice will go unrewarded.

5.) Tell Me What You Stand For. Even if you hated Obama (as I did), you need to know what the other guy is for. Both Kerry and now Romney have run hard on “the other guy sucks.” Obama did this as well, but relied on it to a lesser-extent than Romney. Obama was also aided by something Romney did not have, listed below.

6.) Consistency, Consistency, Consistency. One of the things that hurt Romney immensely was his constant flip-flops. From abortion, to gay marriage, to healthcare, to climate change, the guy couldn’t locate a consistent set of values if they were in his front yard, blindfolded, and tied to a tree. Romney’s record was that of a liberal governor. He tried to pretend to be a conservative. It didn’t work. And why? See point 7.

7.) Secure Your Base. It’s a really bad idea to piss off your base. Why? Because if they won’t vote for you, who will? Obama lost 10 million voters due to how bad he was, but Romney couldn’t even reach McCain’s tallies. Secure your base used to be the first rule of politics. Put up a candidate who your base trusts on the issues that are important to them, and they will give your candidate the leeway they need if they’re ever in a pickle. Put up a guy like Romney, and they simply don’t show up on game day. A couple of pundits tried to cure this by reminding people about the court, but that only reminded the base that Romney’s court picks in MA sucked. Given my principles, I should be a very easy voter for the GOP to get, but I was proudly one of the GOP’s missing voters, instead casting my lot in with Virgil Goode while the rest of my family simply stayed home.

8.) Obamacare. Playing into item #7, never, ever, make your candidate the guy who served as the forefather and architect of what you spent a year and a half (rightly) fighting against. It reminds them that your guy is just like the other guy — a distinction without a difference, if you will.

Another thing to note:

McCain lost indies by 8. Romney won them by 5, and got fewer votes than McCain. The base matters.

I swear I KNOW the Dems didn’t reflect this much in 00 and 04 when they lost to rightie, and they certainly didn’t decide to even more moderate when they lost those two elections. They went leftist and secured their base in 08 and beat us. Aww well let’s all keep us this in fighting and the people we really should be concerned about are robbing our homes..

And? Sorry, but free enterprise is a two way street. Good luck getting the cost of those repairs down when 85% who can’t afford it can’t afford it. They stayed home because it was a offer of more BoAs, more Chase, more Facebook pie-in-the-sky-we-will-take-you-along. Feudal is the product. It isn’t lefty, it is the way the RNC has chosen to follow. Follow it. Give a big sigh when the peeps on the lower 2/3s of the pyramid don’t sign the contract.

I agree with you 100% and I would add one a couple more things- Romney could have capitalized on the CFA thing by showing how government force is being used in conjucntion with gay marriage- just a thought and how that social issue is bleedinig into freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

And I think Romney also fought harder and dirtier against Santorum and Gingrich then he did against Obama. Even though people say they don’t respond to negative campaigns- they do as shown by “war against women” “binders full of women” etc.

Thanks Don for the link. Wonder what basilbch from last night would think?

from Mr. Sowell:
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama’s “tax cuts for the rich” argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama’s argument?

And? Sorry, but free enterprise is a two way street. Good luck getting the cost of those repairs down when 85% who can’t afford it can’t afford it. They stayed home because it was a offer of more BoAs, more Chase, more Facebook pie-in-the-sky-we-will-take-you-along.

Limerick on November 13, 2012 at 4:50 PM

No, they stayed home because they were given a choice between Dem and Dem Lite, and the Charlie Cooks of the world would dearly loooooooooove to see that continue. Notice Cook’s prescription that the GOP needs to tack evenb further to the left. Us vs them sort of populism isn’t going to win conservatives anything, since all you’re really doing is trying to out-lib the libs. Can’t be done.

I’m not against the rich, or the haves or whatever you want to call them, but please explain to me how the pyramid can be inverted and stand? It can’t. Period. Their will always be the base. Mbate the clouds all you want. Most of us live on Earth.

I’m not against the rich, or the haves or whatever you want to call them, but please explain to me how the pyramid can be inverted and stand? It can’t. Period. Their will always be the base. Mbate the clouds all you want. Most of us live on Earth.

Limerick on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

If you consider people who are the government dole to be the base.. well I am not sure which planet you live on but it isn’t this one. You do realize that is the end game here- everyone under government thumb and when you have worker bees as the base and they suddenly stop working well the base falls out and NO ONE is at the top because the pyramid has crumbled- and wallah there is not anymore rich at the top to pay for anything. Just a thought.

Just another opportunity for the rightwing purity brigade to b*tch about Romney.

No one meets with the approval of the purists, with the apparent exception of St. Sarah of Palin. You all hate the Republican Party, and it’s time for you to accept that you aren’t going to change the party to your liking.

As if that was even possible….

Bernie Goldberg mentioned “Ken,” the purity nut who called Limbaugh to say he sat at home on election day, on O’Reilly the other night. Goldberg made it very clear that Ken represents everything that is WRONG with the Republican Party. I couldn’t agree more.

You think this election was a humiliation? Please form your own party, purists, and nominate Palin for POTUS.

I’m not against the rich, or the haves or whatever you want to call them, but please explain to me how the pyramid can be inverted and stand? It can’t. Period. Their will always be the base. Mbate the clouds all you want. Most of us live on Earth.

Limerick on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

You’re using the lib tactic of dividing people up based on income, just as some within the GOP are now preaching divvying up the electorate based on skin color with plans for pandering to this or that group in order to gain a couple more futile percentage points. The “base” is made up of people regardless of income. It’s “based” on ideas and philosphy, not skin color or income.

Of course I have. I’m under no illusion that their can be equality in income. I know I need my job to come from someone one helluva lot smarter and with deeper pockets than me. It is perspective, a perspective that is lost to too many, both at the bottom and the top. Result, we have a money grabber grabbing everyone, top or bottom. That gets the rich more desperate and the trying to be rich hobbled.

No, they stayed home because they were given a choice between Dem and Dem Lite, and the Charlie Cooks of the world would dearly loooooooooove to see that continue. Notice Cook’s prescription that the GOP needs to tack evenb further to the left. Us vs them sort of populism isn’t going to win conservatives anything, since all you’re really doing is trying to out-lib the libs.progressives. Can’t be done.

ddrintn on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Fixed that for you.
The problem is that they are progressives. So as you yeild the left to them, they progress further along taking the victory and making it permanent.

Oh mmkay… I am not a Palinista and I voted for Romney because he was the best of the idiotic bunch we had, but he was not the best candidate we could have gotten if others ran. He also could have run a better campaign against Barack Obama. He let the Dems define him and fought harder against Santorum and Gingrich then he did Obama. And Benghazi- forget about it we didn’t hear about it.

Oh yeah remember Obamacare getting hammered-neither did I-because it was going to be overturned by SCOTUS. Saint Romney wasn’t no saint either- so again ST*U

When you run the guy who has been running since 2006, you think the opposition hasn’t wargamed down to a science exactly how to beat him? This is exactly why Palin didn’t run, y’all. Let the primaries play out as they will, and a candidate will emerge who is right for the base in 2016, not 2012.

A lot of potentially good candidates stayed away in 2012 because they could see the Romney apparatus taking hold of many of the resources on the Right that a candidate would need on his/her side. And this started as soon as they were sweeping away the confetti from the 2008 convention.

Romney did his best, and to be honest, of the field of people who actually ran, Romney seemed to have the best shot, but that field was distorted by his presence.

When you run the guy who has been running since 2006, you think the opposition hasn’t wargamed down to a science exactly how to beat him? This is exactly why Palin didn’t run, y’all. Let the primaries play out as they will, and a candidate will emerge who is right for the base in 2016, not 2012.

Sekhmet on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Oh, come on. It doesn’t take “wargaming science” to figure out how to beat a GOP moderate. Romney was the candidate they wanted to go up against, and with all the “electable” b.s. floating around for 4 years they knew they were going to get him.

Just another opportunity for the rightwing purity brigade to b*tch about Romney.

I’m not pure, but would have liked to see Mitt fight. You obviously wont acknowledge what us knuckle draggers were griping about re Mitt all along.

No one meets with the approval of the purists, with the apparent exception of St. Sarah of Palin. You all hate the Republican Party, and it’s time for you to accept that you aren’t going to change the party to your liking.

and Saint Mitt the magnificent conquered all.

You think this election was a humiliation? Please form your own party, purists, and nominate Palin for POTUS.

Then you’ll know what true humiliation is.

Meredith on November 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM

nope, we all got a golden shower on this one, including you honey. I still don’t feel so hot. Since you are so wise who is next up on your list?

When you run the guy who has been running since 2006, you think the opposition hasn’t wargamed down to a science exactly how to beat him? This is exactly why Palin didn’t run, y’all. Let the primaries play out as they will, and a candidate will emerge who is right for the base in 2016, not 2012.

A lot of potentially good candidates stayed away in 2012 because they could see the Romney apparatus taking hold of many of the resources on the Right that a candidate would need on his/her side. And this started as soon as they were sweeping away the confetti from the 2008 convention.

Romney did his best, and to be honest, of the field of people who actually ran, Romney seemed to have the best shot, but that field was distorted by his presence.

Sekhmet on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

The situation may be so bad in 2016 that the Republicans will be given anther chance to run the country. Romney had to run, not just against Obama but also against the media which attacked him and covered for Obama at every turn, and the entertainment industry. He was then done in by Akin and Mourdock and a party that put him through a gruelling campaign and then failed to rally around him in sufficient numbers. And then there are the morons in his own party who are so vicious they refer to him as Dem-lite.

If Romney had tried to define himself as the very industrious, highly educated, self-made, highly successful and yet the compassionate and caring person he is, he would have been ridiculed by the media as a boastful. It was conservative pundits who should have defined Romney. They suck. But even they aren’t as delusional as the cultists who believe that a woman who thinks that 2 months is sufficient time to organize and run a campaign is somehow presidential material.

If Romney had tried to define himself as the very industrious, highly educated, self-made, highly successful and yet the compassionate and caring person he is, he would have been ridiculed by the media as a boastful. It was conservative pundits who should have defined Romney. They suck. But even they aren’t as delusional as the cultists who believe that a woman who thinks that 2 months is sufficient time to organize and run a campaign is somehow presidential material.

Basilsbest on November 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

LOL, another deranged Mittwit speaks..:)

Romney was never a Conservative, he just pretended to be one when it suited him. As far as Palin goes, she announced she wouldn’t run on October 6th 2011. Your sense of time is just as bad as your choice for President.